Beauty, Mercy, Justice

Denying Babies Communion: “A Medieval Innovation”

Renowned liturgist and retired professor from the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., from his essay, Liturgy in the Life of the Church:

“Now, in the case of Christian Initiation, modern historical research and historical reflection have shown that the universal primitive tradition of both East and West viewed the liturgical completion of Christian Initiation as one integral rite comprising three moments of baptism, chrismation and Eucharist, and without all three the process is incomplete. In Christian antiquity, to celebrate initiation without Eucharist would have made about as much sense as celebrating half a wedding would today. For this reason, contemporary Western Catholic experts on the liturgy and theology of Christian Initiation have insisted on the necessity of restoring the integrity of this process which broke down in the Middle Ages. . .

From the beginning of the primitive Church in East and West, the process of Christian Initiation for both children and adults was one inseparable sequence comprising catechumenate, baptism, chrismation (confirmation) and Eucharist. History is unmistakably clear in this matter: every candidate, child or adult, was baptized, confirmed, and given Communion as part of a single initiation rite. This is the universal ancient Catholic Tradition. Anything else is less ancient and has no claim to universality.

For centuries, this was also the tradition of the Church of Rome. In 417, Pope Innocent I in a doctrinal letter to the Fathers of the Synod of Milevis, teaches that infant initiation necessarily includes Communion:

“To preach that infants can be given the rewards of eternal life without the grace of baptism is completely idiotic. For unless theu eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, they will not have life in them. [Note: From the text, it is obvious that Innocent I is teaching principally that without baptism infants cannot be saved. But the argument he uses from John 6:53, which refers to the necessity of eucharist for salvation, shows he simply took for granted that communion was an integral part of Christian Initiation for infants].”

That this was the actual liturgical practice of Rome can be seen, for example, in the 7th century Ordo romanus XI, and in the 12th century Roman pontifical, which repeats almost verbatim the same rule (I cite from the later text):

“Concerning infants, care should be taken that they receive no food or be nursed (except in case of urgent need) before receiving the sacrament of Christ’s Body. And afterwards, during the whole of Easter Week, let them come to Mass, and receive Communion every day.”

Until the 12th century this was the sacramental practice of the Roman Church and the doctrinal teaching of Latin theologians. Christ Himself said in John 6:53 that it was necessary for eternal life to receive his Body and Blood—“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you”—and the medieval Latin theologians applied this to everyone without exception, infants included.

The practice began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the “age of reason” (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the “age of reason” (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist. Even the 1910 decree Quam singulari issued under Pius X mentions the age of reason not as required before Communion, but as the age when the obligation of satisfying the precept begins.

Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious—realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants.

So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants. Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the ‘age of reason’ theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the “age of reason” requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants. Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation.”

Share this:

Like this:

Related

14 Responses

I’m surprised that innovation was simply a matter of historical accident because it seems so connected to the intellectual trend that burst open in Protestantism. I suppose the codification and apologetic for the historical accident could still be seen as an early indicator of that trend. Here, with the age of reason condition, communion is not something one enters into as part of a family or a community but as an individual. And it is not based on your nature or your place in the communion of saints, but on your personal faculties, and not on your faculties as a holistic set but on one isolated faculty, cognitive function. It’s one small step from focusing on the ability of the mind to focusing on the content of the mind, from ‘justified by reason’ to ‘justified by belief.’ It makes more sense for the age of reason to be a requirement for confession, because one can hardly be guilty of sin or capable of repenting before one can comprehend those concepts.

It is connected to the trend that burst open in the Protestant Rebellion.

In the Office of People with Disabilities, in the Archdiocese of Portland, we have permission to grant first communion before confession, as some of the people we work with will NEVER mentally achieve the age of reason. Some infants are more advanced spiritually than the people we work with. I am also glad to be in one of the few parishes that kept Pope Pius X’s innovation of 1st Communion before Confession (though that will be changing next year under pressure from the Archdiocese and a new priest that is a Canon Lawyer) at least long enough for my special needs son to get both. I wonder if he’ll ever be comfortable with Confession though- we got a dispensation for me to be in on his first, and I just knelt and prayed a rosary while Christopher confessed his issue with a schoolmate.

When I was a member of a Reformed Church, for years I pushed (without success :-)) paedo-communion. Following the Reformed teacher James B. Jordan, I held there should be no reason why any baptised person who was otherwise not disqualified for Communion should not receive it.

One issue in our church was that the set of Communicant members and the set of electors of elders was identical :-)

My understanding is that Confirmation and then Holy Communion could, quite properly, immediately follow Baptism – that said, I could see a number of practical reasons for postponing both.

It’s not clear to me that Confirmation need involve the free will of the person. Confirmation is the imparting of the Holy Spirit. We have come to think of it as ‘me confirming that I will follow Christ as a Catholic’ – but I don’t think that is what it meant originally. I think the ‘firm’ in the name meant just ‘strengthening’ – and the strengthening is from the Holy Spirit. I don’t see why it should involve the free will of the recipient.

Do we? I’m not at all sure I know why. The sacraments of state of life – baptism, confirmation, marriage, and ordination – are all about very definite, clearly-marked points in life. Is there any such definite point regarding the age of reason?

I attended an Eastern liturgy once, and the deacon was about to offer communion to a toddler, when she started shrieking “Not me! Not me!”

Humor aside, I don’t think think there can be any debate that the ancient practice of the Church was to give babies baptism, confirmation, and communion.

An interesting thought, if the Western church did return to the ancient practice, this would pretty much abolish the celebration of first communion. I don’t know how big those celebrations are any more, but historically it seems they were very important celebrations.

This is not an argument in favor of the current practice, I’m just thinking about how this would change affect the Western church culturally.

When we came back to the Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church, my son was 2. One Catholic priest told us that it would be a “scandal” to allow him to receive Communion. A traditionalist priest insisted to me that my son wasn’t missing any graces by not receiving the Eucharist even though he had received in the Orthodox Church. I never pushed the issue but it seemed obviously wrong to me to withhold the Eucharist from a child who was already receiving. It also really bothered me that my son’s receiving could be seen as a “scandal” when 99% of the adults at every Mass received in their hands.

We’re now back in the Orthodox Church. This isn’t the reason we came back but I’m very relieved that my son is no longer essentially excommunicated.

Jessica, I’m so sorry for the misunderstandings. We have belonged to Byzantine Catholic parishes, and some of our children were baptized, chrismated and had their first Communion as infants. it was awkward on the few occasions we attended a Roman-rite ‘quickie’ Mass for the sake of convenience and my 2 year old would eagerly open his mouth to receive at Communion time, only to receive a blessing. I think it would be wonderful if the Roman rites went back to offering the sacraments of Initiation to infants. Not sure how intinction would work in the Roman rite mega-parishes. Somehow it seems easier in the smaller, Eastern-rite churches.
Emma, re: infant Communion doing away with first Communion celebrations, some Byzantine parishes replace it with a similar, first-Confession celebration at seven or so, which is a nice alternative.

PS – more to the point, what would such a sacrament accomplish? The sacraments are God’s action on us, not ours on Him. Baptism gives us the new life; confirmation fills us with the Holy Spirit; marriage unites the spouses in a new relationship; ordination gives the ordinand certain powers. I’m not sure what an ‘age of reason’ sacrament would actually do.